Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 3

1. Actus Reus AR = Culpable conduct The commission of a voluntary act that is prohibited by law.

law. AR can be established by an affirmative act or an omission.

Voluntary Act Requirement To be criminally liable, the defendant must have voluntarily done something wrong (Martin)

MPC 2.01(1) - Voluntariness is satisfied if any one of the proscribed acts in a statute is committed voluntarily. a. Under MPC as well as majority common law approach, A.R. must include a voluntary act. In order to have committed a crime D must have done voluntarily done something wrong. Voluntary requirement is quite narrow, its satisfied if only one of the prescribed acts is committed voluntarily. If a crime consists of multiple conduct elements, to satisfy voluntariness requirement only one of those prescribed acts must be committed voluntarily (under MPC and common law) b. According to Winship, for a D. to be convicted of a criminal charge, state must prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt. (Winship case) And then the state must prove that the criminal conduct includes a voluntary act. Or omission. (in addition) (MPC 2.01 (1) Martin, you can site that case for this)so for this principle, site this every principle followed by MPC number) c. Martin was a confusing case, but important to understand. At the broad gist of case, criminal liability, criminal act must have been voluntarily performed. (Martin) however, when you drill down, more analysis, b/c public intoxication included 2 conduct element (appearance, manifestation 2nd element was voluntarily performed, so court in Martin saying every element must be voluntary? Probably not, that would lead to absurd result, drunkenness statute cannot be applied when vomit) -its okay to cite Martin for proposition crime must include voluntary act, Under 2.01 (1) as well as common law only one d. does this mean that conviction will always happen when indil perform only one conduct element voluntarily? No, why not? D might have a defense. just because condition is permissible, meaning that state can prove beyond R.D. doesnt mean conviction will occur, D may have defense (ex. Duress, entrapment, mistake, accident)dont think that just b/c conduct was performed voluntarily conviction will follow automatically.

In Re Winship H: For a criminal conviction, the Due Process Clause requires that state prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt Preponderance of the evidence standard is constitutionally insufficient in a criminal case. R: Supporting Beyond a Reasonable Doubt standard (BRD) 1. history/precedent 2. std used as means to reduce risk of convicting the innocent. People lose liberty and are stigmatized by convictions 3. necessary for the respect of the community

Applicable Standard for cases to go to Jury Whether after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime BRD. Patterson F: Killed wifes lover. H: The N.Y. statute did not violate the Dfts Due Process right to have the state prove every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, because the absence of provocation (pr extreme emotional disturbance) was not an element of the offence. In Mullaney, the absence of provocation was included in the statutory definition of murder

Note: Patterson stands for the idea that state can move elements out of statutory language and label it as affirmative defense. Elements of the Statute: 1. intent to cause death of another person 2. causes death of another person Maine Statute: Murder: a killing with malice aforethought meaning a killing with intent to kill w/out considerable provocation Absence of provocation included in statutory definition of murder! N.Y. eliminated the w/out provocation from the definition of statute defining murder. Take away points from Winship and Patterson: According to Winship, when a legislature includes an element in a statute, it must be proven by beyond a reasonable doubt (Winship) BUT under Patterson, legislature has lots of freedom to evade the force of the reasonable doubt requirement by moving elements out of a statue & transforming them as affirmative defenses (Patterson) o Although there are limits to this, they are not clear. Affirmative Defense: Dft has burden of production to raise an issue going to his defense Excuses: insanity Justifications: self-defense States do not have to offer the Affirmative Defense of heat of passion/ without provocation at all

A.R. Defense
Defense: Involuntariness Can be established by (1) overwhelming external force (Martin), or (2) internal reactions (Newton) CL: Unconscious act is involuntary and a complete defense to charge of homicide. MPC 2.01(2) - list of non-voluntary acts

Reflex or convulsion, bodily movement during unconsciousness or sleep, conduct during hypnosis, bodily movement that is not the product of the effort or determination of the actor either conscious or habitual. Self-induced state is not a defense to AR (e.g. murder while on LSD).